Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

i already said good work of crew s-125 ,they used radar all the way from search to aim and hit f-117.
(F-117 even got retired afterwards)
but it took some time to get lock on f-117 by aiming radar ,supercruising f-22 would have been gone by that time unlike a subsonic target.
they even sold the tv cameras with image intensifier in s-125 to libya or egypt few years before that

And lets not forget russia helped nato by calling yugoslav best pvo crews to study and train on s-300 in perm and tver , while the war was raging ,knowing they wouldnt get it anyway..... therefore their best pvo units were away during conflict with Nato and couldnt help their country.

But Kub had them cameras and they didnt help ,new thermals would but first somebody gave up that purchase from french and latter help didnt come... semiactive kub didnt score 1 hit exept on many towed decoys , radio-command neva got 3 so very good indeed with few more damaged.
Overhyped S-300 is basically also semiactive like kub.
new improved s-125, with better ceiling and range and most important aspect- good mobility ,upgrade will be very impressive i agree.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

TR1 wrote:Well yeah, Russia didn't have a giant tanker force + bases all over EUrope and Asia.
Russian aviation was more concered with the EUropean front, then uselessly spending money to fly over the US.

You can go back to masterbating over the mighty USA though, nobody cares.

Oh and S-125 made F-117 irrelivant, if we use your logic
Great return for spent money that turned out!    

But the western  "expert" will always find  excuses, for example  the "explanation" of the F117 incident  is that it wasn't shot down because stealth isn't some miracle technology but because  it "had rain droplets on its fuselage  thus  increasing RCS"  and  that "it was taking the same flight path all the time and the serbs were prepared"      

[/quote]

who said that? that even sounds stupid.
many times planes got away just on the edge of engagement envelope ,they didnt push their luck and were very cautious.
in SAM you wait for your target to come to you.
like a spider.
So ,there is always some luck.most important was to survive -first ,then get the opponent to break off attack-second, and only then the third is to kill it.

Absolutely true.

So ,there is always some luck.most important was to survive -first ,then get the opponent to break off attack-second, and only then the third is to kill it.

Serbian Kubs don't have thermals, Hungarian have. Kub also score one F-16 in Bosnia, but in Serbia not. As army air defense they were more in reserve for a case of ground invasion.

But Kub had them cameras and they didnt help ,new thermals would but first somebody gave up that purchase from french and latter help didnt come... semiactive kub didnt score 1 hit exept on many towed decoys , radio-command neva got 3 so very good indeed with few more damaged.

i didnt say thermals
i said -tv cameras with image intensification.
KT53-2  and the WPU-44 indicator.
kub had as many firings as neva.

OK, my mistake.

True, and less losses than Neva. Kubs were heavily hunted from SEAD teams, so they don't have enough time to work with radars to hit targets, but on the other hand their mobility show their true value for future SAM systems.

and  that "it was taking the same flight path all the time and the serbs were prepared" 

So....?

Even if it was a train and it kept the same schedule do you think that would be enough to get a hit?

Take a pistol to a track in the middle of nowhere and lets pretend there is a ghost train that you can neither see nor hear that makes regular trips down that track... hit it with your pistol... but remember that if you shoot continuously they will spot you and set up an attack to take you out... what are your chances of getting a kill?  Really... even if someone told you the time table for the train your chances of actually shooting and killing the train is zero... unless you can actually detect and track the target.

but it took some time to get lock on f-117 by aiming radar ,supercruising f-22 would have been gone by that time unlike a subsonic target.

Which is why the Serbs over Serbia and Kosovo would have had problems dealing with the F-22. The Russians on the other hand have a large number of mobile and fixed radar sites and aircraft equipped with IRST and BVR IR guided missiles that would be perfect for shooting down an F-22 with friction heated skin from supersonic flight.

And lets not forget russia helped nato by calling yugoslav best pvo crews to study and train on s-300 in perm and tver , while the war was raging ,knowing they wouldnt get it anyway..... therefore their best pvo units were away during conflict with Nato and couldnt help their country.

Interesting... so NATO couldn't even beat their B team... with all the wrong equipment...

But Kub had them cameras and they didnt help ,new thermals would but first somebody gave up that purchase from french and latter help didnt come... semiactive kub didnt score 1 hit exept on many towed decoys , radio-command neva got 3 so very good indeed with few more damaged.

Kub has old radar dish search and guidance with enormous juicy sidelobes and continuous wave guidance that just asks for a HARM launch. S-300 has PESA radar that is much more difficult to defeat and can deal with HARMs itself.

True, and less losses than Neva. Kubs were heavily hunted from SEAD teams, so they don't have enough time to work with radars to hit targets, but on the other hand their mobility show their true value for future SAM systems.

The experience of Kub in the ME already led to the development of BUK with improved mobility and engagement radars on the TELARs which meant one HARM could not take out the entire battery by blinding its only radar.

dino00 wrote:Excelent post.
You choose the right word PROPAGANDA.

Propaganda worth many billions?
Lets not kid ourselves ok?
The B-2 employs much more structural stealth inside airplane ,and has the size to do it. Its a huge thick wing so its leading edges have diagonal ribs supports and trailing edges are serrated in a way you cant match is a smaller thin wing fighter.They covered it in black plastics to hide it.







But not even B-2 will match 2m wavelenght the aesa nebo is using ,its structure has less then half the wavelenght (1m) of depth to be effective ,but it will take many many years and $$$ for russians to field that many radar sets.

GarryB wrote:

And lets not forget russia helped nato by calling yugoslav best pvo crews to study and train on s-300 in perm and tver , while the war was raging ,knowing they wouldnt get it anyway..... therefore their best pvo units were away during conflict with Nato and couldnt help their country.

Interesting... so NATO couldn't even beat their B team... with all the wrong equipment...

thanks to russia.
not only it didnt help but it weakened the yugo defenses.
help to put stories about s-300 for syria and iran into perspective. russians are making them look like idiots.

Mindstorm wrote:

SOC wrote:If I had the money and the power I'd be examining satellite-based EW radar. Viewed from directly above the B-2 is not going to hide from crap.

Vote to intuition : 10

Naturally you can acquire much, much ,much more than simple EW and in a way immensely more discreet (remembering that any body radiate electromagnetic waves and its position is always inserted in electromagnetic fields of different frequency).


The word МРИС say something to you ?

Well the problem with Satellite Based EW is it would need a constellation of it either in LEO/MEO orbit for complete coverage of region , then there is a question of power and also do not forget Atmospheric Attenuation of signal in different weather condition.

All you need here is a high flying UAV with an altitude of 25-30 km and looking down with an AESA/PESA radar operating in combined L/X band , then you can directly look from above at B-2 , F-22 or PAK-FA and track them in realtime.

For this Zond-1 looks promising http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/projects/bpla/complex/

Well the problem with Satellite Based EW is it would need a constellation of it either in LEO/MEO orbit for complete coverage of region ,

Three satellites are more than capable to cover the entire Federation's space and some thousands of km around......

All you need here is a high flying UAV with an altitude of 25-30 km and looking down with an AESA/PESA radar operating in combined L/X band , then you can directly look from above at B-2 , F-22 or PAK-FA and track them in realtime.

Obviously not ; you would need several thousands of UAVs, moreover with infinite flight's time,  to obtain a result ,anyhow , incomparably inferior (you couldn't monitor field's variation in ionosphre).

At first happy new year 2014 to all.


I browsed deeply, and with great attention one of the rare serious western think tank about weaponnery -please if you know others, tell me, I will be happy-the Carlo Kopp's subject of russian, chinese, and US weaponneries.



He claimed that, nowadays, there is no russian hardwares, either in radar, missiles, aircrafts, sam -even S-300, S-400, and S-500 -,  that could match and hence unable to stop the B2A and F-22 Raptor -http://www.ausairpower.net/raptor.html-.
The only one that could match is the Su pak T-50, however this aircraft, is now in test, and is not operationnal. I did not yet check the Vladimir Ilyin's website -http://paralay.net/index.html- about this question.

My question is :
Does it exist any weaponneries in russian -or chinese ?- arsenal that could stop or match the B2A, and F-22 Raptor ?

Those who know the history, about russian industry, are well aware that Russia is full of very very cleaver engineers.
During the cold war, after the F-100, F-104 USSR rolled out the wonderfull Mig 21, and Su-7.
After the Fantom II, and F-105, USSR deployed Mig 23, Mig 25, Su 17
After the F14, F-15, F-16, F-18, USSR built the Mig 29, Mig 31, and the wonderfull Su-27 that is untill now unbeatable.
I casted doubts about Carlo Kopps claims -however, I have no arguments against him, because he is a fair and great specialist in this question-, because during the war in Iraq, some F-117 were downed, as  in Yugoslovia, 1999 due to the very cleaver serbian engineers.
Recently Iran downed electronically RQ Sentinel drone that would undetectable, in fact one the state of the art in stealth's technology. I suspect-I have no clues, however Iam nearly sure-,this success is due to russian made radar Nebo, bought by iranians in black market-?- .

It is dubioius if Russia now, has not any response against the F-22, and B2.

Guys Iam waiting from you responses.

Viktor, Vladimir, Garry and others......I look forward your answers.

Thx for any help.


PS: Nevertheless, sometimes in US there are recurrent claims, that US monopole in stealth technology is on the eve of the end, as said this old article : http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/stealth-tech-obsolete/

No , neither the F 22 nor the B 2 can penetrate Russian airspace .

You may choose to read this Forum Topic where a similar question was asked

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1803-is-russia-safe-from-f22

The B-2 is the only one of the two large enough to actually be stealthy against longer wave radars that will pick up F-22 type targets at fairly long range.

The B-2 however is a subsonic bomber that even a Mig-15 could take out if it got close enough.

While both are a threat I don't think they are more of a threat to Russia than Russian TOPOL-Ms are to the US.

They certainly don't have the capacity to allow the US to beat Russia in a war any more than the TOPOL-M would allow Russia to beat the US in a war.

The B-2 and the F-22 are just very expensive white elephants.

GarryB wrote:The B-2 is the only one of the two large enough to actually be stealthy against longer wave radars that will pick up F-22 type targets at fairly long range.

The B-2 however is a subsonic bomber that even a Mig-15 could take out if it got close enough.

While both are a threat I don't think they are more of a threat to Russia than Russian TOPOL-Ms are to the US.

They certainly don't have the capacity to allow the US to beat Russia in a war any more than the TOPOL-M would allow Russia to beat the US in a war.

The B-2 and the F-22 are just very expensive white elephants.

It should be noted that the B-2's most coveted stealth secrets have been compromised:

"In the November 15 grand jury indictment, Indian-born engineer Noshir Gowadia is charged with 18 counts of spying. Besides providing China with classified technology relating to the B-2’s engine exhaust system, he is also charged with several other counts of selling top-secret information."

http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/3059.1539.0.0/world/military/b-2-stealth-bomber-compromised

...If a WW3 scenario were to happen the likely scenario would have US/NATO on one side, and Russia/China on the other, China sharing classified information on how to defeat the B-2 bomber would be in the cards, amongst all the other sensitve information China obtained on US/NATO systems. Here's a incomplete list of American weapon systems compromised, and no doubt China is developing counter-measures:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-list-of-the-us-weapons-designs-and-technologies-compromised-by-hackers/2013/05/27/a95b2b12-c483-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html

Thx all for your responses and your links.
At first, I assume that, my question was not correct, I reedited the title.
I said again, and again, a war between Russia, and US is impossible. Absolutly impossible. Because, as you know all, Russia, like US have weapon mass destruction that could wipe out of the map each others.
US oligarchy is diabolic, ok, but they are not stupid. US war against Russia, and China, was definiend by Zbigniew Brsezinki. How they could do, is step by step by dismember Russia. By creating artificial states like baltc countries, south by transforming pacific people in Georgia, Chechenya, Ingouchia, Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan as russian's ennemies. As they are trying to do nowadays with Ukraynia.

Let's back to our subject, my question in fact is more precise, Does Irbis-E, Su-35's radar or Phazotron Zhuk-AE Mig 35's radar abble to track and destroy an F-22, B2A ?
Could S-400 track and down a stealth aircraft ?
It seems that, as carlo Koop, these system could not track and down a stealth technology.
Please do not tell a scenario about a war between USA and Russia, it is impossible. If you see, only about 200 F-35, and only less than 20 B2 were rolled out. If it is not enough to threaten China or India, it is enough to vitrify every russian built syrian air defense systems.
This is the claim made by Carlo Koop, not me, however, as Vladimir ilyin said at least few F-117 were downed in 1991 during Iraq's desert storm operation.
And few F-117 were downed during US air campaign in Serbia 1999. Moreover, in end of 2011, a RQ 170 Sentinel was electronically downed by help of russian technology, and russian engineers.
Furthermore an US aircraft designer said that Stealth technology is a scam.
http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/jet-fighters/low-band-radars-can-see-f-22/2766818779001/

Stealth is helpfull feature but nothing like the shit the US is propagandizing over the decades to a Super-Duper-Waffe. Attack 3rd world countries like Iraq but still Stealth jets were used in formations with non stealth jets such as F-15/4 which used ECM to cover their size of fleet and provide a better protection against the 30 year old exports of Iraq.

Such tings as Super or Wunderwaffen doesn't exist even tho they would like you to believe.

Stealth isn't a game changer and doesn't give them penetration capability of russian or chinese airspace.

If it would be possible to penetrate airspace unnoticed they would do that already, USA is not hesitating when it comes to showing off power like with nuclear genocide against japan.

Few month ago, I was far to imagine a such scenario, as US are unable to finalize their JSF, which seems to be a disaster.

http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/new-russian-air-to-air-missiles-will-field-almost-perfect-accuracy/

I think nowadays SU-35 match perfectly with F-22, if it doeas not overpass it, when Su-Pak T50 will come, the advantage will defently go to Russia, and China. No western fighter could match with the new Su Pak T-50 and the next J-20 -which I think it could be a copy of Mig 1.42 ? If someone could tell us the truth... -, and J-31-Yakovlev design ?-
I hope now Russia will retrieve all its past attributes.

The problem is that unless Russia and the US go to war the comparison between Su-35 or PAK FA and F-35 and F-22 are meaningless, and even if they do it will descend rapidly into a nuclear confrontation which neither can 'win'.

At most it will make other states more or less safe... Israel less safe, Taiwan less safe, etc etc.

X band radars seem to be of limited usefullness against stealth aircraft. Would a fighter configuration with a very large IRST lens instead of a radar be a viable option? Radar data could still be obtained from a conventional wingman, AWACS or ground radar.

Swede55 wrote:X band radars seem to be of limited usefullness against stealth aircraft. Would a fighter configuration with a very large IRST lens instead of a radar be a viable option? Radar data could still be obtained from a conventional wingman, AWACS or ground radar.

Terrible idea to be honest... IRST only works at a limited range, and is best left as a supplement to phased-array radar systems. X-band isn't the only feasible frequency that could be mounted into an aircraft, S-bands, and even L-band systems fit in fine despite their larger size (sue to image definition). IRST systems can be affected by wavelengths of light and even the weather, they also don't perform as well depending on the altitude, weather, clouds etc. 

Like I said, it should be a supplement and nothing more.

Unlike radar an IRSTs performance doesn't really improve with apature.

the problem for the IRST is the small gaps in the frequency where IR energy is not absorbed by atmospheric moisture.

There are three main gaps, called long, medium, and short wave IR, and each band has its advantages and disadvantages... the band with the best quality needs a cooled seeker.

the best solution is the future QWIP system using chip based sensor arrays designed to detect IR and visible light and UV. Decoys like flares and IR jammers can give off UV light so being able to see in a range of frequencies can make them resistant to jamming and flares.

In many ways a radar and an IRST compliment each other and would not be suitable replacements either way.

A better idea would be IRST in all three bands plus visible light and UV and radar in X band and Ku band and longer frequency bands too with software able to weave the bandwith and signal from the radar to detect all manner of targets.

US is testing its new Growler NG( Next Generation) . Western fighter so far that has managed to kill the F-22A in BVR combat exercises is the USN Growler. No one had expected it to be a top-tier 5th gen fighter killer. It's long range passive targeting system and EA attack could not be defeated by the F-22A's own EA, and it got too close to the Growler's AIM-120D and snuffed. No doubt the F-22A fleet have altered their tactics as a result of this lesson i.e. don't get close enough to be hit by a Growler. The problem is the Growler can easily defeat any AIM-120D sent its way by an F-22A, and has to get close to use and AIM-9X (RAAF is installing the AIM-9X Block II and III to make it a fully passive unjammable WVR and BVR attack capability with an IR FLIR detection pod that is cued by its long-range passive integrated detection and tracking system). Put a laser Directed Infra-Red Countermeasure (DIRCM) on the Growler and nothing will be able to hit it with an IR BVR/WVR missile either.

i.e. Growlers were designed to both kill S-300 and S-400 SAMs, and to be a 5th Gen J-20 fighter killer that can also prevent them from using their sensors, weapons and datalinks, and prevent them achieving their mission. In other words, the Growler is the core capability that enables the low observable attack and defense paradigm to operate with extremely high confidence and maximizes its capability.